100 comments:

Cap and Trade will be an extremely burdensome regressive tax on everybody (and particularly the poor) and regions that produce energy or products (red states). It will cause the economy the stagnate and will cause jobs to flee overseas to countries that are not suicidal in their economic policies.

PS: It will do nothing to help climate change, beyond the decrease in American GDP and standard of living. It may make it worse as production in US clean factories with relatively clean power is shifted to dirty Chinese plants using even dirtier Chinese power.

Looking at the map of how the cap and trade bill will affect various states, it is a huge income transfer from the Red states to the Blue states. New York and California make out like bandits while Texas takes a big hit.

This isn't about the environment at all. It's good old-fashioned greed and corruption. Just like the stimulus bill, this isn't about solving problems: it's about lining the pockets of Democrats and their cronies on the backs of the American taxpayers.

During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

Yikes. Economic suicide is right.

At best, a "cap and trade" plan is equivalent to a carbon tax in terms of economic efficiency if all permits are competitively auctioned. Hence, "cap and tax" would be a blessing.

This abomination is "cap and graft," pure and simple. There is a reason "cap and trade" of this sort was Eron's wet dream before it collapsed.

During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

Good lord. That's insanity. I hope my moderate dem's start blocking things. I know at least one of my senators is up for re-election in 2010.

The Drill Sgt is correct, this is going to do nothing but kill American industry and lower the standard of living for all Americans, especially the so-called poor who were scammed into thinking Obama was going to look out for them. And all the while doing nothing to combat the fantasy that is climate change.

I'm not prone to hyperbole, but I swear I am beginning to think Obama actually WANTS to destroy America while he and the Democrats line their pockets. I mean, no one can be this stupid can they?

Except that every study that has purported to show those things has been exposed as completely fraudulent. They oversample some areas, completely ignore others, etc. The last one I saw completely left out Canada - one of the largest countries in the world - because if you add in the cold water which surrounds it the purported "rise in sea temperatures" completely disappears.

Even NASA (home of snake oil salesman Hansen) had to admit a couple of weeks ago that the "global warming" which has occurred to date is a result of solar activity not man-made in any way.

Even the "global warming" groups no longer claim global warming, they've switched to "atmospheric deterioration" because every claim they have ever made, every computer model that has ever been derived, every scare tactice they have ever use has utterly failed to produce any reproducible, scientific proof that it exists.

You're behind the times, Alpha. Even the professionals who are pushing these lies have left "global warming" behind. Why do you think Al Gore just got uninvited from speaking in front of Congress today?

BTW. If carbon dioxide is so deadly, then where are the proposals to regulate most of the life on Planet Earth since both we and pretty much every animal on earth produce it?

If carbon dioxide is so deadly, then why do plants require it to live?

This whole global warming myth is based on suppositions based on the little we know about the planet Venus. It's pure guesstimation based on a scientific theory that we can neither prove nor disprove because we have never been able to accurately study Venus' surface.

No they haven't and no it hasn't. Sea levels have remained unchanged for years. In the few places recording big changes, that is due to land subsidence.

The earth has actually been stable or cooling for the last twelve years.

Besides, Cap and Trade will do nothing. Even the worse pessimists admit that reducing all human caused carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels would reduce anticipated temperatures by less than half a degree. (Of course, the real problem is CO2 simply doesn't do what the alarmists claim it does. If it did, we could create really awesome energy factories.)

Another interesting point: in the early 19th century, scientists measured the CO2 in the atmosphere. It was only slightly different than today. These measurements have been ignored in favor of proxy calculations. That is very bad science.

Alpha Liberal...You are in the running for the most mind controlled commnenter of the year. The oceans are not warming. They are cooling. Carbon Dioxide fouls nothing. It is a necessary part of life upon earth. Think about true things for awhile and you will get your mind back.

He doesn't just say cap and trade is a tax. He's says it's a huge tax.

I swear someone needs to help you keep up on your talking points because you are way behind. I understand that the Democrats keep changing their story every day so it can be hard to keep up, but you should write them a letter so they stop leaving you out to dry like this in the future.

I wouldn't go that far but his economic worldview is stuck on the outlook of a radical college student who thinks profit, capitalism and most American history is rancid and evil. Hence Obama wants to re-make America.

Like Carter, Obama will ruin the prospects for future Dem Prez candidates for a decade or two.

For years Socialists have theorized that the only to implement their ideas is for a major depression to hit the US. The theory goes that the people will then cry out for government to save them, and they'll be able to use the "crisis" to nationalize industries.

Another evidence that these dicks knows what they are advocating is fraud is that they have done nothing to encourage building pebble-bed nuclear reactors, which are extremely safe and which are available now, not in some mythical future.

As we enter this Global Cooling Period we should heed the advice of experts like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann. The biggest threat as we all know and face is Obama sending ACORN thugs to do the Census. Just like the Japanese Interment Camps. Be very, very scared!

I'm a trained computer modeler. Not these models, but models regardless.

These global climate models are pure bull. They don't predict shit.

Here's how you model.

1. You observe the world.2. You create theory about what you are observing3. ou create a testable hypothesis basd on your theory4. You build amodel or conduct a test. In this case, you look back in history and see if your model, given historical inputs can produce results tha mach the present. If you fail, go back to step 15. if you succeed, then you make predictions using your model about future events. If you predict the future, your hypothesis isnt proven, but it int false either. do more tests, make more predictions6. if you fail to predict the future, go back to step one

The AGW modelers are "refining their models", meaning they have been through steps 1-4 several times and cant yet model the past, much less the future.

Garage... Why include Palin in your list of nut jobs fearing the government? She is the government in Alaska, and she leads it very well. Real leadership does not lie to the people it is leading and try to leave them broke and hopeless to "cool the globe".

I am a financial analyst. From my perspective, so far Obama has failed to adequately shore up the auto industy (8-10% of our GDP), the financial svc sector (8-10% of GDP), and now he wants to meddle with our healthcare sector (15-16% of GDP) and energy (6-9% of GDP).

That, in total, is about 40-50% of GDP. Plus he already controls Defense (10%) and other guvmint sectors.

This a daunting undertaking for the most inexperienced prez in history.

He appears tp be a megalamaniac to me. This is way too much change at one time.

Why are we so worried about temperature variations based on 100 years of data? I don't want to hear from anyone who leaves out all the ups and down temperature wise that our planet has experienced that had nothing to do with our actions. Go back 200 years, or 300, or a thousand and we'll talk.

And who says that the temperature it was in 1900 is the perfect one? Maybe hotter is better. The mini ice age certainly didn't sound like all that much fun (except for all the snow).

Joe said... Another evidence that these dicks knows what they are advocating is fraud is that they have done nothing to encourage building pebble-bed nuclear reactors, which are extremely safe and which are available now, not in some mythical future.

Waxman, the bagman of Hollywood moguls, and Markey of Massachusetts - the two authors of the Bill - are also serious anti-nukes that have worked to destroy nuke power as an option for 20 years.As is Pelosi, who replaced John Dingell with a Hollywood lawyer (Waxaman) with no background in enegy or industrial infrastructure energy needs.

Meanwhile, in California, all solar projects are stalled by environmental lawsuits ....and the same Greenies have also started an effort to block all future geothermal projects on grounds that fracking hot subsurface stone and pumping water into it to generate steam causes minor earthquakes....

===============Commentors warning that this bill will greatly damage the American economy and prolong recession and joblessness are unfortunately looking to be correct...unless the Senate blocks this Algore-driven insanity.

The crowning irony would be having to export our unused coal and natural gas to China to run factories driven out of America by the Waxman-Malarkey Bill.

Like most of his proposals of the last few months, the government seems to impose its legislation with little regard to the deleterious effect of the legislation.

Car companies in trouble? Increase CAFE standards. Banks having problems? Increase reguations. Economy in a tizzy, impose massive new regulations that will drive many companies overseas, where they won't be subject to them, thus not even accomplishing the goal of the regulations (reduction of global warming).

I like The Drill SGT's and AJ Lynch's comments ("I'm a(n) [toiler in a similar/relevant field]". Here's mine:

I'm a software tester, developer, and executive. My primary training was in Quality Assurance (QA). Testing models isn't really that hard, and it should go exactly the way The Drill SGT says. However, most laypeople probably aren't aware of where the bugaboo lies. Modelers who want to encourage their pet results or who are incompetent to explain reality tend to hide those problems by running around the problem by blaming them on other uncontrollable variables are at fault, or-- especially important in this case-- by building kludges (ugly, band-aid like fixes that often don't address the underlying problem).

In the case of climate modeling, modelers can tweak their models until they predict past history pretty well, and then they hand them to Al Gore. But who's to show them the problem that comes up in The Drill SGT's step 5-- failure to predict the future? That failure takes years to develop. It's failing now, as many here have noted, but most people out there don't believe it, and the failed models will wither away and die eventually, only to be replaced by others that may be just as buggy.

From a QA perspective, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is incredibly buggy and in the slightest degree suitable for public consumption. If my development and QA team had handed me such a piece of trash, I'd have cancelled the whole project.

I don't believe CO2 concentration is a predicted variable in climate models -- I could be wrong (I work at smaller time scales). I would also be very surprised if volcanic events are included (except in, perhaps, some statistical sense).

I do appreciate, however, that your underlying questions presume that the Earth is warming, in keeping with observational data.

I do appreciate, however, that your underlying questions presume that the Earth is warming, in keeping with observational data.

Well, that is the thing...whether the earth is "warming" or "cooling" all depends on when you start measuring.

The earth has been getting cooler for the last 10 years or so after peaking in 1998...should we now be alarmed about global cooling? If this trend continues, we'll all be freezing our asses off by 2200 or so.

"I do appreciate, however, that your underlying questions presume that the Earth is warming, in keeping with observational data."

"Observational data" don't actually show any such thing as an independent trend line, but we don't even have to get into that discussion.

What is relevant is "is there any proof that man has anything whatsoever to do with global temperatures either way?"

Given the correlation of temperature to solar activity and the exposure of the lies of "An Inconvenient Truth" as a starting point, there simply is no evidence beyond the level of statistical noise that man has any effect on global temperatures.

My understanding is that the earth's temp, climbs and falls. Unless and until a model can model both increases and decreases in temps/CO2, and does so from any start point, I'm unconvinced that they are't just "fit" to match a certain set condition or to produce a desired result. I understand that every model has "Knobs"

Trying? Dude, economic activity contracted at a 5.5% annual rate in Q1 - it's tanked, now they are making sure it can never climb out of the tank. They would rather rule over the destitute than live among the prosperous.

I always look at that chart and think: Couldn't they fix the x-axis. Sheesh.

Anyway, I have a bias towards surface-based observations (which might explain why I failed the radiation part of the comprehensive exam -- but then, so did everyone else, the Prof was being an ass, so the whole section was tossed), like the ones here (stale -- I wonder why they don't update it?) or visible imagery, not infrared, as at the Rutgers global snow lab. Lake Ice seasons are also fascinating data sources.

Jim, you will not see a post of mine claiming that, so why are you talking to me?

I only show observations. I do not advocate carbon taxes -- they are not sensible. A more sensible thing would be nuclear energy. That and things like solar and wind energy -- with the turbines built here in the USA -- would be a good thing. Alas, much of the Republican Party would rather just shout that there's no climate change rather than addressing the real problem of importing so much of our energy -- and having an unsustainable lifestyle that makes us beholden to goon states like Saudi Arabia, friend of the Bushes. Plus Republicans want to make sure none of them thar gays get married. You know, cause that's just so important (eyeroll).

Keep on fiddling, Republicans, while the Republic burns. I know you all want to blame Democrats, but the whole stinking cesspool that is DC is the number one problem in this country. And that includes each and every member of the Senate and House.

Models, schmodels. I was at the beach last week and I had to spread my blanket almost a tenth of an inch farther up the beach than last year. Also, it took me half a second less time to stop shivering when I went in the water. Obviously, this is a disaster that must be stopped at any cost!

"Alas, much of the Republican Party would rather just shout that there's no climate change rather than addressing the real problem of importing so much of our energy -- and having an unsustainable lifestyle that makes us beholden to goon states like Saudi Arabia, friend of the Bushes. Plus Republicans want to make sure none of them thar gays get married. You know, cause that's just so important (eyeroll)."

Well, I'm not a Republican, but I think many Republicans who opppose this attack on science don't contend that the climate doesn't change, just that humans contribute little (if any) to the process. And if you think opposition to gay marriage is a point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, you haven't been following the news lately.

My ambiguous pronoun use is my own fault. I was directing the remainder of the post to the collective "you" rather than you specifically.

P.S. I agree with you that politicians in general are the problem. I'm all for returning to the part-time citizen legislator. As soon as it became a full-time job, the drive to accumulate power and wealth at the public's expense was inevitable.

It's one of the reasons that the TEA parties are encouraging to me. I think we may be reaching the anti-politician "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more" moment in American politics required for significant change in our political culture.

Madison Man - Alas, much of the Republican Party would rather just shout that there's no climate change rather than addressing the real problem of importing so much of our energy -- and having an unsustainable lifestyle that makes us beholden to goon states like Saudi Arabia, friend of the Bushes..

Thanks for your previous mention that nuke power makes sense (especially if we end Jimmy Carter's idiocy and recycle 99% of it and burn up all the long-lived actinides, as most nuke nations now do).And I agree that you have some Republicans - mostly of the evolution denial sort - who deny any global warming.

But skepticism of the URGENCY it is in order. Especially when the models are now failing - as new data shows variable solar output is driving a warming phase, data showing that the "man-made" charge is not accurate.

In a near-depression, the economic damage of America suddenly tossing 11 trillion in infrastructure investment, to suddenly have to spend 6 trillion to replace it - with "exciting alternative energy sources and machines and appliances designed to use it???

Catastrophic!

In the long, long term...yes, a 250 year supply of natural gas in America, enough coal to sustain ALL our energy needs for 400 years...yes, that is an unsustainable lifestyle, eventually.

But not next month under Obama. Not if fusion comes on line, or breeder reactors give us 300 more years of such "unsustainability" on top of the 400 years of coal and 250 years of nat gas.

And if we are "beholden" to KSA - I know it is a Lefty meme even though the Saudis have been the most responsible oil exporter next to Kuwait and Canada and only accounts for 10% of US oil use???Why then are we seeing liberal Democrats so adament against drilling for oil or gas anywhere in the USA??

You're fairly smart, Madison Man - you do know that exciting windpower and pipedream solar will not fuel any vehicles, right?? Not for decades. Not when wind is distant, erratic and solar electricity for a car costs the equivalent of 78 a dollar gallon of gas or diesel?

You drill like crazy, substitute natural gas for gasoline wherever possible for vehicles. Start exploiting abundant oil shale. Reduce our dependency on imported oil back to 30% or so from 70%.

THEN plan for a 30-40 year transition off fossil fuel for electric power generation and vehicles. Trillions in debt, it would be suicidal to write off 11 trillion in fossil-dependent infrastructure and suddenly need 6 trillion in new "green" stuff that will not make a dent in global CO2 generation.

Hey, who cares? Pelosi's got hers, Al Gore's got his, Reid's son's got his, we'll all get ours but not in the same way! So, what's to worry about, after all in the short run, it's all dust to dust, etc...

Not true, a few all-union projects are good to go. It's just that the greenies are acting as the enforcer arm of the Dem crime family..

Last I heard, Holdfast, the California State legislature worked with the unions and fully funded several solar projects out of the dubious Cali State budget, and passed laws to expedite construction - and still blocked by environmental radicals tying them up in State and Federal court.

With blue collar unions and elitist San Fran environmento-lawyers at each other's throats.

In keeping with a new strategy of deflecting blame for the country's economic woes onto the standard-bearers of Russian capitalism, Mr Putin excoriated supermarket executives for their greed as ordinary shoppers looked on in bewilderment.The prime minister abruptly interrupted a meeting with senior retailers at the Moscow White House, the seat of the Russian government, to drag them on an impromptu visit to a nearby branch of the Perekrestok supermarket chain.

Striding angrily through the aisles with a retinue of glum executives in tow, Mr Putin came to a halt in the supermarket's cold meat section and gesticulated towards a packet of sausages priced at just under £5.Rounding on Yuri Kobaladze, the chain's head of corporate relations, Mr Putin demanded: "Why do your sausages cost 240 roubles? Is that normal?" "But these are high quality sausages," Mr Kobaladze replied, looking crestfallen.With a look of relief crossing his face, the executive spotted some cheaper sausages."Look, these ones are just 49 roubles," he said.But the prime minister was not to be deterred. "Too expensive," he muttered, before conjuring up a price list from his pocket. "I can show you your mark up. Look at this kind of sausage. You've marked it up by 52 per cent."The exchange was a classic example of the political theatre in which Mr Putin excels. It came just two days after an opinion poll revealed that the principal concern of 75 per cent of Russians was high food prices.

"Keep on fiddling, Republicans, while the Republic burns. I know you all want to blame Democrats, but the whole stinking cesspool that is DC is the number one problem in this country. And that includes each and every member of the Senate and House."

Well, I am a conservative, not a Republican, and I do not believe that the science of man-made global warming is convincing. I can't say it isn't possible, but the case is far from proven. I also think that reducing use of foreign oil would be a very good thing for America - lots more nukes (esp micro-nukes, solar and wind in places that actually make sense and incentives to update coal plants to run cleaner would all be good, along with domestic oil exploration. You don't have to believe in AGW to believe in NO2 and SO2 and the harm they can do. If you do believe in AGW, I am not sure why you would want to see American industry sent abroad to less energy-efficient places, unless your goal was really harming the USA and not CO2 reduction.

"You don't have to believe in AGW to believe in NO2 and SO2 and the harm they can do."

We can definitely agree there. The funny thing is the environmentalist crowd didn't think they were getting enough attention when we were just talking about "pollution," so they did what any good Leftist does: they created a "crisis."

They needed something catastrophic...something that the whole world would have to pay them to fix...something too big to ignore...they needed "global warming."

Notice how you don't hear about "pollution" any more? Why worry about pollutants when you can bamboozle the world into thinking carbon dioxide is so terrible?

Just stop and consider the magnitude of that scam. The very thing we produce with every breath. The very thing that plants need to live. Even if you killed every bit of industry in the world, you would still have to pay them to warn about carbon dioxide (!!)

It's absolutely brilliant! Even if we get everything we say we want, we will still be able to claim that the problem isn't solved because people and animals will always breathe! It's pure genius!!

But wait a minute...Where are we going to find people so incredibly gullible? I mean carbon dioxide's been around since the Earth began, so who would buy off on such a ridiculous fantasy. I mean it's cool if we can get people to pay us ungodly amounts of money, but who's got that kind of money?

::ponders for a minute::

Hey...what about those people who thought that America was the bad guy and the USSR was the good guy? I mean, that was pretty stupid too, right? But they spent almost 40 years selling their integrity to defend that lie, I'll bet we could get them to tell people that carbon dioxide is dangerous too!!! EPIC WIN!

We're fouling our nest by pumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Your a tool, you've always been a tool you stupid motherfucker and you continue to believe in this lie of global warming and you fall on your own sword by promoting it. Curb stomping you would be a pleasure at this point.

Another thing that is ignored by those pushing this bill is that it wouldn't really do any good, even assuming that CO2 was the primary cause of global warming, etc. It just isn't going to reduce CO2 enough to make any difference whatsoever, and esp. since the Chinese are apparently bringing one coal fired plant on-line every week.

That means that even using those models, the cap and trade bill would not noticeably reduce the increase in sea levels, while costing trillions.

Alas, much of the Republican Party would rather just shout that there's no climate change rather than...

....I would answer that Democrats would rather shout that the world's ending based on the fundamental assumption that climate change is somehow both new and disastrous. They definitely need to focus on our various energy-related problems and stop scaremongering. But they've learned that creating a "Crisis" is how to get things their way, so we're stuck in this rut.

Why not just pass an excise tax on energy use. That would do the same thing as this bill and it would be a lot more efficient.

If the taxes were used to pay down the massive debt along with spending cuts that Obama is running up from his bailouts, then we could all be better off.

The climate change part of the bill is a sham. By 2012 most of the world's respected scientists will have changed their mind on man made global warming, since after 10 years of data it hasn't occurred.

scinfinity asked "Why does the Left try to portray the GOP's desire to have the bill read before voting as "obstructionism" and not as, you know, "doing their job""

Because they belong to the father of lies and the truth is not in them? Well, that was harsh and untrue about most of them.

Most of them are flaming narcissists and think that they know better than we do. Since they know better, we should just trust them. When we do not trust them, it causes a narcissistic injury, and they must villanize the complainer to protect their fragile but inflated ego.

Republicans do the exact same thing, but they try a little bit harder to protect their voting base because we like to think that some Republicans really are conservatives.

CO2 is necessary for life, so dumping millions of tons into the atmosphere is good for us? WTF?

Scifinity: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm

Really?

Yeah. Really. Did you even read what you linked to?

A) It's THREE YEARS OLD. B) "The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has cooled significantly since 2003."

Here is a fresh report from the same source:

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for May 2009 ranked fourth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

More at the link: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090617_globalmay.html

Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has cooled significantly since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming seen over the previous 48 years. .

"This research suggests global warming isn't always steady but happens with occasional 'speed bumps'," said Josh Willis, a co-author of the study at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to human-induced climate change." .

Researchers found that the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. .

You cite a page that actually disputes your own argument!! Dishonest, hasty, or dumb, I can't say.

According to the Greenland ice record, as reported by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker, the planet as repeatedly warmed and cooled over the past half-million years. During the Medieval Optimum, when temperatures were even warmer than today, civilization blossomed. The food supply soared, average human height went up two inches, paintings from that era show semi-naked women women whom we would today consider curvaceous to the point of fat. People even started living longer due to better nutrition and a decrease in upper respiratory infections during the now milder winters.

I don't think man-caused emissions of a beneficial and useful gas like CO2 are doing anything to the climate. It'a just the same normal and natural flucatuations as we've seen in the ice record dozens of time before. Nor am I worried about a warmer planet. The last time it was this warm it did us nothing but good.

Duscany said" "I don't think man-caused emissions of a beneficial and useful gas like CO2 are doing anything to the climate. It'a just the same normal and natural flucatuations as we've seen in the ice record dozens of time before. Nor am I worried about a warmer planet. The last time it was this warm it did us nothing but good."

AlphaLiberal: "This part you guys don't seem to understand: The temperatures are changing much more quickly. It used to be on a geologic time scale ("half-million years"). Now, it is within human lifetimes."

You're wrong on both counts. First of all the earth's temperature has gone up very slowly in recent times. Best estimates are one half degree Celsius during the 20th century (Dr. Syum-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska, author of 550 professional journal articles and currently one of the most cited scientists in the world). This is also close to the IPCC estimate. If you think world temperature is going up faster I'd be interested in knowing who you are citing and whether his qualifications exceed those of Dr. Akasofu (or, for that matter, the IPCC).

It is also not true that temperatures in the past always went up slowly. As Elizabeth Kolbert points out in her seminal New Yorker article, Ice Memory, "In one particularly traumatic episode some twelve thousand years ago, the mean temperature in Greenland shot up by fifteen degrees in a single decade." There is no evidence of anything like that happening today. At best Greenland's temperature has gone up 1 degree Celsius in the last 120 years.

I know that most liberals very much want to blame global warming on man (or his corporations), but you can't just make up the facts you use to support your claims (or rely on activist websites).

The famous hockey stick of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," in which he (and so many other credible people) put so much stock, suffered from so many statistical errors (and self generated biases) that the model that generated it invariably produced a hockey stick temperature curve even when fed random numbers for data.

Yes, the earth is warming, but usually very slowly, as it has many times before, long before there were any humans on the planet or major extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for May 2009 ranked fourth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Combined water and land?

Hmm, I thought we were discussing, you know, oceans alone. Because paving roads will cause an increase in average temperatures on land...

And pollution is one of the biggest failures of market economics we have. The market is blind to pollution and the costs it imposes on other people.

Yet no Communist state exists with any semblance of an industry that is nearly as clean as a capitalistic one.

Funny, huh?

This part you guys don't seem to understand: The temperatures are changing much more quickly. It used to be on a geologic time scale ("half-million years"). Now, it is within human lifetimes.

Significantly improved measurement devices have no bearing, huh? These .016 changes in temperature would've been recorded as, you know, NO change just 100 years ago.

I still haven't hear from the AGW people how they account for the change in the makeup of the locations they use for their control group. When you take the temps from 100 years ago and a location was in the middle of a pasture and today the location is in the middle of a subdivision right next to an electric source, then some modifications have to be made to account for the difference just from the physical makeup of the area but I have never seen any of the AGW people do anything to account for this. that in itself calls their claims into dispute. If you cannot even prove a solid base for your control group, then how can anyone put any faith or trust in your findings?

Come on, Guys. It's not about AGW, it's about changing us to a "more fair and just" society, it's about control by the power elites, you know, those who are smarter and better than the rest of us. You know, elites like Barry and Michelle. That's what's important.

Oh yeah, forgot about Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy, they need to wet their beak too.

As for Jeremy, AL, and some of the others, well, they might get their fannies patted and someone will tell them "Good Boy, you get a biscuit!"

"This part you guys don't seem to understand: The temperatures are changing much more quickly. It used to be on a geologic time scale ("half-million years"). Now, it is within human lifetimes."

Not remotely true. There have been several drastic shifts of temperature in recorded human history as well as many prior to it. The causes were sometimes volcanoes and perhaps a comet strike (Younger Dryas), other events are more explainable by solar activity and yet others have no explanation as of yet.

I hasten to also point out that in the last six months the temperature has fluctuated where I live by over 60 degrees!

Speaking of cold, if the earth is warming, why did it snow in southern Brazil about a year ago? (The answer is best given by meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart: “Of course, it snow in year of heightened solar activity and El Niño, but history tells the most impressive episodes took place in winters either with La Niña or negative PDO in the Pacific or during periods of lowered solar activity”)

"These rapid changes will make life difficult and lower our standard of living."

How?

Seriously. How will it do that? Going back in history, cooling temperatures are associated with crop failures, increased mortality, reduction in trade and increase in diseases. Warming temperatures are associated with the opposite. So how would the current gradual warming be different?

If this is warming is going to harm us, what is the correct temperature of the earth?